I was fully prepared to utterly despise this movie. It claims to be a new adaptation of one of my favorite science fiction stories as well as a remake of the all-time classic Universal Monster movie of the same title. Yet, even the most fleeting glance at the film's trailer will make it abundantly clear that it is yet another "In-Name-Only" movie. Where the flick in question is an entirely unrelated story with totally different themes and ideas but bears the name of a recognizable property for the sole purpose of boosting ticket sales with the power of nostalgia value. These are a few of the Hollywood practices I detest for many reasons, chief among them being an unforgiving disrespect to the source material and the assumption that the audience is too stupid to recognize it. Even so, despite my reservations, I went into this film with an open mind. Much to my surprise (and annoyance), I can confidently say that while the movie itself is surprisingly good on its own merits, it still manages to fall short due to lazy marketing and wrong-headed choices made by cowardly executives. There is a good film in here that deserves better than this.
Claiming to be based on the novel by H.G. Wells, the story follows a woman named Cecilia (Elizabeth Moss) who has just escaped the clutches of her abusive sociopathic husband, who also happens to be a wealthy tech genius specializing in optics. A few weeks after her escape, her husband's lawyer informs Cecilia of her husband's death by suicide. By her husband's final wishes, Cecilia is to inherit five million dollars, provided she not commit a crime or be deemed mentally incompetent. Shortly after receiving this fantastic news, Cecilia starts having strange incidences, which cause her to question her own safety and sanity. However, she soon discovers that her husband has not only faked his own death, but has used his optical technological genius to develop a means of invisibility, and has been using it to torment and destroy Cecilia. Now, Cecilia must prove her situation before she falls victim to her husband once again.
If you have ever read the original book or seen the original movie from 1933 starring Claude Rains, then you know that the story I have just summarized is a massive departure from the source material. Not only in terms of narrative, but also in theme. The works of H.G. Wells have always shared a common theme of the dangers of unchecked science and the catastrophic consequences of ignorance. Not to mention that sometimes people are just jerks who do awful things for no adequate reason other than they can. The story, as presented in this brand new movie, is one of the psychological and emotional traumas of an abused woman embodied by the unethical use of highly advanced science. While you could argue that there is a hint of similarities between the two, that is still not enough to justify sharing the title or association with the works of H.G. Wells. This is yet another case of the I, Robot problem.
What upsets me the most about this whole situation is that the film itself is, in actuality, pretty damn good. Taken on its own merits, the movie as a whole is well made and genuinely tense. Or at least it would be were it not for the fact that it is titled The Invisible Man. As I said a moment ago, the film is more of a psychological thriller wherein the main character's sanity is continuously questioned. Because of the story's circumstances (that being that the antagonist is invisible), everyone around Cecilia assumes that she's having difficulty dealing with the trauma and that she is being haunted by her own fears. Had the film been given a different title that didn't instantly give away the movies "twist," it might have been a significantly more satisfying experience. Because the narrative plays out in such a way that the audiences could have been fooled into believing that it was potentially a ghost or her own loss of sanity, the reveal of the invisibility would have been much more enjoyable. Instead, because of the trailers and the all-revealing title, we are left watching the characters stumble through what we the audience are already well aware of—thereby resulting in a boring story.
Writer/Director Leigh Whannell, who previously graced audiences with the science fiction masterpiece Upgrade, delivers a bright and deliberately paced narrative that begs to have its own identity rather than be constrained by its nostalgic association with a literary classic. Maybe Whannell genuinely wanted to "modernize" a classic or an overpaid Studio executive slapped a familiar title onto the script for marketing purposes, we may never know. What I do know is that had the publicity for this movie presented me what the film genuinely was rather than try to win me over with name recognition, I might have been more inclined to give the film a passing grade. As it stands, it is yet another valiant effort by a talented filmmaker to be forever bogged down by incompetent marketing.
This new take on The Invisible Man is the equivalent of trying to make a Chocolate Cake while blindfolded. You may feel like you know what you're doing, but unless you can get that pesky veil off your face, the results won't be as you hoped. As much as I would like to recommend the movie strictly for its own genuine good merits, I cannot in good conscience do so when there is already too much working against the favor of the film. If you are curious enough, I recommend waiting for the video. Otherwise, track down and watch the original 1933 movie if you haven't seen it yet. I assure you, it is more of what you would expect and is a Golden classic.
Is this movie worth seeing?
No.
Is it worth seeing in Theaters?
No.
Why?
"It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation."
-Herman Melville
Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment